Holding

The High Court's interference and directions were unwarranted; the Government's cancellation of the examinations was valid, and the High Court could not prescribe directions under the Administrative Tribunals Act or on reservation or qualifying‑marks matters.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of District Selection Committee written examinations in Anantapur district after a police report detailed massive irregularities, and the subsequent fresh examinations and results. It held that the State Government was justified in cancelling the exams and that the High Court should not have interfered with that administrative action. The Court also ruled that the High Court could not issue directions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, nor prescribe any "carry‑forward" reservation scheme, as those matters were already governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in L. Chandra Kumar. Further, the Court found the High Court’s declaration that the notification reducing minimum qualifying marks was illegal to be untenable and set aside those directions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court orders were vacated, the writ petitions dismissed, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal restored.

Issues considered

The validity of the High Court's interference with the Government's cancellation of the Anantapur DSC written examinations.
Whether the High Court could issue directions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 concerning tenure, vacancy‑filling and the nodal agency.
Whether the High Court could direct the "carry‑forward" system of reservation in teacher recruitment.
The legality of the notification reducing minimum qualifying marks in the teacher recruitment process.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 8
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982s. 78, s. 79

Subjects

service lawexamination cancellationadministrative tribunalsreservation policycarry‑forward systemminimum qualifying marksjudicial reviewpublic interest litigationArticle 21Article 226L. Chandra Kumar precedent

Judgment

A B. RAMANJINI AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

APRIL 26, 2002

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAW, JJ.]

Service Law:

Examination for recruitment-Cancellation of by Government after
C enquiry-High Court held that examination could not have been cancel/ed-
On appeal-Held, examinations rightly cancelled-Undue interference of
Courts with action of the Government not warranted.

Recruitment-Selection challenged on the ground of non-observation of
'carry forward' system in reservation-Validity of Government notification
D providing reduction in minimum qualifying marks questioned-Petitioners were
not affected parties-Non-impleadment of selected candidates-High Court
not disturbing the selection as having been completed, and holding 'carry --\.
forward' system as not applicable in the facts of the case-However, directions
·issued regarding 'carry forward' system of reservation-On appeal, Held,
E High Court's interference not justified in the absence of selected candidates
and since the petition was not maintainable as the same not filed by affected
persons nor the matter involved public interest-Direction by High Court not
warranted since for future no particular principle could be set out in a judgment
of the nature where nothing has been decided.

F Constitution of India-Article 226-Directions by High Court relating
to Scheme of Administrative Tribunals Act, I 985 and fixing time limit for
constitution of nodal agency as directed in L. Chandra Kumar's case-
Propriety of-Held, directions were not called for since Supreme Court has
explained the scheme and it is seized of the matter.

G Civil Appeal No. 6461 of 1998

Written examination of District Selection Committee (DSC) in Anantpur
District were cancelled by State Government on recommendation of Collector
on the basis of report of Superintendent of Police pointing out various
irregularities in conduct of the examination. Examinations were held afresh.
I-I 506
B. RAMAN HNI v. STATE 507

Results were announced. A
Respondent No. 5 who could not qualify in the subsequent examination
filed original application before Central Administrative Tribunal for
declaration that the subsequent DSC written tests in Anantpur District were
arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 and sought direction to declare
appropriate results. B
Tribunal held that main relief to declare the result had become
infructuous and in as much as Government had already cancelled the
• examination, inquiry into various lapses was not required.

Respondent No. 5 thereafter filed writ petition before High Court C
contending that the cancellation of examination was not legally acceptable as
the same was only on the basis of news paper report and not on any other
material; that the circumstances and material for cancellation of examinations
were similar to other districts and following the analogy of Aantpur District,
examinations in all the districts should have been cancelled.
D
Report of the Superintendent and recommendation of Collector were
,. not placed before High Court High Court held that the examination could
not have been cancelled as there was no distinction between Anantpur District
and other districts. Hence the instant appeal.

C.A. Nos. 894 of 1999 and 3094-3ll0 of 2002. E
High Court while dealing with appointment of teachers in a writ petition,
issued directions witi. regard to Scheme of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
viz. the tenure of office of the members, Chairman and Vice Chairman of
Central Administrative Tribunal, manner of filling up the vacancies therein
and fixed time limit for constitution of nodal agency as directed in L. Chandra F
Kumar's c3se.

In appeal, issue for consideration was whether High Court was justified
in issuing direction, particularly relating to the scheme of the Act.

C.A. No. 3093 of 2002. G
In appointment process of Secondary Grade Teachers, Government
issued notification providing for reduction of minimum qualifying marks in
order to ensure filling up all posts.

On the allegation of leakage of question papers and mass copying, H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A examinations were cancelled in one district, while it was not cancelled in other
districts and the candidates were selected.

Writ petitions were filed questioning the selection on: the basis of
irregularities. Constitutional validity of notification providing reduction of
minimum qualifying marks was challenged in some writ petitions, and it was
B contended that implementation of reservation policy was perfunctory as carry
forward system was not observed for each of the reserved categories. Writ
petitions were not filed by the affected persons; neither the selected candidates
were impleaded as parties.

High Court held the notification as illegal and found that carry forward
C system was not applicable in the case. But it did not disturb the selection
process as the same had been completed. However, it issued directions
regarding carry forward of reservation. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeals, the Court
D HELD:

CML APPEAL NO. 6461 of 1998

1. So far as the centre at the Anantpur District is concerned, there was
enough reason for the Government to cancel the examinations. There is no
E doubt that what has weighed with the Government is the letter of the Collector
accompanied by the report of the Superintendent of Police, though the same
does not seem to have been made available to the High .Court, which was the
basis for cancelling the examination and holding of the fresh examination.
(513-B, C]
F The Bihar Sc.hool Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors.,
(1970) 1 SCC 618; Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P.
Allahabad v. Chanshyam Dass Gupta and Ors., (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 36, referred
to.

G 2. High Court ought not to have interfered with the order cancelling·
the examinations and holding fresh examinations. In matter such as in hand,
wide latitude should be shown to the Government and the Courts should not
unduly interfere with the action taken by the Government which is in
possession of the necessary info~mation and takes action upon the same. The
Courts ought not to take the action lightly and interfere with the same
H particularly when there was some material for the Government to act one
J-·
8. RAMANJ!Nl v. STATE 509

way to the other. In such cases, it would lead to very serious anomalous results A
'involving great public inconvenience in holding fresh examination for large
number of candidates. [513-H; 514-A; 513-D, E, GJ

C.A. No. 894 of 1999 and C.A. Nos. 3094-3110 of 2002

Since this Court in l. Chandra Kumar's case., has already expressed its B
views on the various questions examined by High Court, it was not proper
for the High Court to have issued any of the directions, particularly directions
relating to the scheme of the Act. No particular time could have been rlXed
• by the High Court and the directions issued by it in this regard are wholly
unnecessary, particularly when this Court is seized of the matter, it was wholly
within its competence to monitor, supervise, control and direct the c
Government in this regard. High Court has engaged itself the role of a
legislative body to rescue those who are in distress by adopting this procedure.
Further, when this Court has explained the scheme of the enactment and
expressed its views, no directions could have been issued by the High Court
on all those aspects and the direction, in particular, in what manner the D
vacancies arising thereto should be filled up was totally uncalled for. The High
Court has been carried away by some kind of adventurism and virtually tried
to overreach what this Court has stated which course should have been
avoided at all costs. [515-C; 516-G, H; 517-A, B]

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union ofIndia, [1997J 3 SCC 261 and S.P. Sampath E
Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [198711 SCR 435, referred to.

C.A. No. 3093 of 2002

1. High Court ought not to have examined the matter at the instance of

- '
the petitioner, particularly in the absence of the parties before the Court whose
substantial rights to hold office came to be vitally affected. The Writ petitions
ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a public
interest litigation. It is not a case where those candidates who could not take
F

part in the examination had challenged the same nor was any public interest,
as such, really involved in this matter. It is only in the process of selection
and standardisation of pass marks some relaxation had been given which was
G
under attack. [518-G, FJ

• 2. Directions given by the High Court regarding reservation shall stand
set aside. Having not disturbed the selection process as the same had been
completed and having held that question to carry forward for this selection H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A does not arise, there was no need for the High Court to have given any -.
directions for future merely on the basis of hypothetical situation as to how
the selection had to be made and provide for the manner in which it should
be given effect to. For future no particular principle could be set out in a
judgment of the nature where nothing had been decided. [519-C-E]

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6461 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.98 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A. No. 19784 of 1998.

c WITH

C.A. Nos. 894/99, 3094-3110 and 3093 of 2002

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, L. Nageswara Rao, Ms. K.
Amareswari, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Jayanth Muthraj, K.C. Sudarshan, Mohd.
D Wasay Khan, Brij Kishore Mishra, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, T. Anil Kumar,
T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba Rao, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeswaran, S.A. Matto,
T.N. Rao, (NP), R. Santhana Krishnan, D. Mahesh Babu, K. Sarada Deyi for
the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeal No. 646111998.

An original application was filed before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] by
respondent No. 5 for declaration of results of 1998 District Selection
F Committee written test in Anantapur District, for declaration that it is arbitrary,
illegal and v ;olative of Article 21 of the Constitution and for a direction to
declare the appropriate results. The Tribunal noticed that originally
examinations had been held on 19.4.1998 and 20.4.1998 in Anantapur District
to select secondary school teachers mainly for Language Pandit cadre. The
G Government of Andhra Pradesh by an order made on 15.5.1998, after noticing
certain allegations of mass copying cancelled the examination of the District
Selection Committee in respect of Anantapur District and directed further
action being taken in the matter. Thereafter examinations were held on
11.7.1998. Results of the same were published on 29.7.1998 and interviews ..
were conducted on 27.8.1998. The Tribunal noticed that inasmuch as the
H Government had already cancelled the examinations did not consider it fit to
~

B. RAMANJINI v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 511

... order an enquiry into various lapses in Anantapur District and held that the A
main relief to declare the results had become infructuous. On that basis, the
Tribunal disposed of the application. The matter was carried by way of a writ
petition before the High Court.

The contentions raised before the High Court are that the Government
had cancelled examinations in Anantapur District on the basis of newspaper B
reports and such issue has been raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly;
that there was no other material, much less, legally acceptable to cancel
• examinations; that the circumstances and the material are similar to other
districts and following the analogy of Anantapur District, the Government
ought to have cancelled the examinations in all the districts as they are
similarly situated and in not doing so, the Government had acted with
c
discrimination; that the Tribunal ought to have directed the publication of
results in all the centres of Cuddapah, but erred in withholding the delcaration
of results even ignoring the report of the Secretary to the School Education.

1 ne High Court found that an enquiry had been held in respect of other D
districts and on the basis of the enquiry concluded that there was no need to
cancel the examinations en-mass, as disclosed in the letter dated 24.4.1998
sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister an enquiry report had
been called for but even in the absence of such an enquiry or report, the
Government could not have cancelled the examinations.
E
The stand of the appellants is that on account of several representations
and complaints made by the candidates and write ups in the newspapers, the
District Collector, Anantopur District ordered an enquiry to be conducted by
the Superintendent of Police on 27.4.1998. On 25.4.1998, Superintendent of
Police submitted a report to the Collector pointing out, inter a/ia, the following
F
• • irregularities in the conduct of the examinations:

I. There was mass copying.
2. Staff appointed for invigilation was totally inexperienced.
3. The concerned authorities did not appoint sufficient number of
invigilators at majority of examination centres.
G
4. Large number of Superintendents did not attend the duties on
. the examination day .

5. Several staff were appointed for examination duty only to assist
their kith and kin. H
~
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A 6. There was collusion between the invigilating staff and the ,..
candidates and thereby the candidates were allowed to sit in the
examination halls as they liked.
7. Proper sitting arrangement in the examination centres was not ._ i
made.
B 8. The selection of examination centres itself was improper and
that the concerned authorities have ignored those centres with
better facilities and had selected private schools as examination
centres. ...
9. Outsiders entered into the examination centres with active
c connivance of invigilators and ·superintendents.
10. Op the night of 18.4.19~8. i.e. one day before the examination,
photocopies of question papers reached private coaching centres
at different places and_ were put on sale at a price of Rs. 2,000
each and copies of the ques~ion papers were also published in
D 'Vartha' newspaperon 19.4.1998.
11. About half-an-hour after the examination commenced, key to
the multiple choice questions were photocopies and have reached "--
many of the candidates. ...
E The Superintendent of Police also made available the phQtocopies of
the question papers. On the basis of the report of the Superintendent of
Police, the Collector made a report to the Government recommending
cancellation of the examinations and holding of fresh examinations.

The High Court, however, felt that there was no distinction between the
F case of Anantapur District .and other districts. But it is not very clear from
the material pla~ed before ii~ wllether !ette~ oft~e Collector accompanied by
the report of the Superintendent of Po.lice had been placed before the High
Court or not. If the letter and the report had been placed befo~e th~ High
Court, we are sure, the High Court would not have reached the conclusion
G it did in the case of the Anantapur District.

In matters of this nature, as to how the courts should approach is
explained in the Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha
and Ors., [1970) l SCC 618 and Board of High School & Intermediate
Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta and Ors., [1962)
H Supp. 3 SCR 36. The facts revealed above disclose not only that there was
B. RAMANJINI v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 513
scope for mass copying and mass copying did take place in addition to A
leakage of question papers which was brazenly published in a newspaper and
the photocopies of the question papers were available for sale ai a price of
Rs. 2,000 each. These facts should be alarming enough for any Government
to cancel the examinations whatever may be the position in regard to other
centres. It is clear that so far as the centre at the Anantapur District is B
concerned, there was enough reason for the Government to cancel the
examinations. We have no doubt in our mind that what has weighed with the
Government is the letter of the. Collector accompanied by the report of the
~ Superintendent of Police, though unfortunately the same does not seem to
have been made available to the High Court, which was the basis for making
the order on 15.5.1998 cancelling the examination and holding of the fresh C
examination.

Further, even if it was not a case of mass copying or leakage of question
papers or such other circumstance, it is clear in the conduct of the examination,
a fair rrocedure has to be adopted. Fair procedure would mean that the
candidates taking part in the examination must be capable of competing with D
each other by fair means. One cannot have an advantage either by copying
or by having a fore-knowledge of the question paper or otherwise. In such
.. matters wide latitude should be shown to the Government and the courts
should not unduly interfere with the action taken by the Government which
is in possession of the necessary information and takes action upon the same. E
The courts ought not to take the action lightly and interfere with the same
particularly when there was some material for the Government to act one
way or the other. Further, in this case, the first examinations were held on
19.4.1998. The same stood cancelled by the order made on 15.5.1998. Fresh
examinations were held on 19.7.1998 and results have been published on
29.7.1998. Interviews were however held on 29.7.98 in such cases. The events F
• have taken place in quick succession. The parties have approached the court
after the further examinations were held and after having participated in the
second examination. It is clear that such persons would not be entitled to get
relief at the hands of the court. Even if they had not participated in the
second examination, they need not have waited till the results had been G
announced and then approached the Tribunal or the High Court. In such
cases, it would lead to very serious anomalous results involving great public
inconvenience in holding fresh examinations for large number of candidates
and in Anantapur District alone nearly 1800 candidates were selected as a
result of the examinations held for the second time. Therefore, we think, the
High Court ought not to have interfered with the order made by the H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A Government on 15.5.1998 in cancelling the examinations and holding fresh
examination.

The appeal is allowed and the order made by the High Court in this
regard shall stand set aside by dismissing the writ petition and restoring the
order of the Tribunal.
B
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 89411999 and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3094-31101
2002 [@ SLP (C) Nos. 8772-878812000]
.,,,
Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8772-8788/2000.

c The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of writ petitions while
dealing with the appointment of teachers in the State of Andhra Pradesh also
dealt with a Writ Petition No. 15463 of 1998 - Muthineni Krishna Rao and
Ors. v. Union ofIndia and Ors. - and, inter alia, gave the following directions:-

(1) that the ratio laid down by this Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs.
D Union of India, [ 1997] 3 SCC 261, is the law of the land under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India;
(2) that in service matters covered by the Tribunals Act, the remedy -~

of judicial review should be first availed before the
Administrative Tribunals before approaching the High Court;
E (3) that Section 8 of the Tribunal Act fixing the tenure of
appointment as five years would be pro tanto unconstitutional
and accordingly Section 8 of the Tribunal Act is read down that
the Chairman and the Vice Chairman shall hold the office till
the attainment of 65 years of age from the date of assumption
F of office and the Members, both judicial and Administrative,
shall hold the office tm the attainment of 62 years of age from •
the date of assumption as such;
(4) that the sitting or retired High Court Judges shall also be
considered for appointment to the post of Vice Chairman of the
G Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal;
(5) that the advocates shall also be considered for appointment as
Judicial Members as also Vice Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal; 'f

(6) that in the next vacancy, which is falling vacant in this week
H because of retirement of Shri Kuppu Rao, Member of the Andhra
B.RAMANJ!Nlv. STATE [RAJENDRABABU,J.] 515
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, an Advocate be considered in A
that place;

(7) that the nodal agency as directed by this Court in L. Chandra
Kumar's case (supra) shall be constituted by the Government of
India within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order; B
(8) that in future, in the personnel appointed to man the
Administrative Tribunals, the experience on the service law
jurisprudence and the concerned constitutional provisfons shall
be one of the relevant considerations, which is one of the
elements of elevation of standards of such personnel; c
In L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) this Court has already expressed
its views on the various questions examined by the High Court and in respect
of which directions have now been given by the High Court. All that we need
to say is, it was not proper for the High Court to have issued any of these
directions, particularly directions relating to the scheme of the Act. On that D
aspect in S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1987) I SCR
435, it was stated by this Court :-

"Section 8 of the Act prescribes the term of office and provides that
the term for Chairman, Vice-Chairman or members shall be of five E
years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he
attains the age of 65 in the case of Chairman or Vice-Chairman and
62 in the case of member, whichever is earlier. The retiring age of62

... . or 65 for the different categories is in accord with the pattern and fits
into the scheme in comparable situations. We would, however, like
to indicate that appointment for a term of five years may occasionally F
operate as a dis-incentive for well-qualified people to accept the offer
to join the Tribunal. There may be competent people belonging to
younger age groups who would have more than five years to reach
the prevailing age of retirement. That fact that such people would be
required to go out on completing the five year period but long before G
the superannuation age is reached is bound to operate as a deterrent.
Those who come to be Chairman, Vice-Chairman or members resign
.. appointments, if any, held by them before joining the Tribunal and,
as such, there would be· no scope for their return to the place or
places from where they come. A five year period is not a long one.
Ordinarily some time would be taken for most of the members to get H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A used to the. service-jurisprudence and when the period is only five
years, many would have to go out by the time they are fully acquainted
with the law and have good grip over the job. To require retirement
at the end of five years is thus neither convenient to the person
selected for the job nor expedient to the scheme. At the hearing,
learned Attorney-General referred to the case of a member of the
B Public Service Commission who is appointed for a term and even
suffers the disqualification in the matter of further employment. We
do not think that is a comparable situation. On the other hand, ...
membership in other high-powered Tribunals like the Income-Tax
Appellate Tribunal or the Tribunal under the Customs Act can be
c referred to. When amendments to the Act are undertaken, this aspect
of the matter deserves to be considered, particularly because the choice
in that event would be wide leaving scope for proper selection to be
made."

So far as the creation of the nodal agency is concerned, this Court in
D L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) stated as under :-
"The suggestions that we have made in respect of appointments to
Tribunals and the supervision of their administrative function need to
be considered in detail by those entrusted with the duty of formulating
the policy in this respect. That body will also have to take into
E consideration the comments of expert bodies like the LCI and the
Malimath Committee in this regard. We, therefore, recommend that
the Union of India initiate action in this behalf and after consulting
all concerned, place all these Tribunals under one single nodal
department, preferably the Legal Department."
F Steps have been taken by the Government of India to bring the
administration of various Tribunals under a single nodal agency and the
views of the State Governments and other departments are also being gathered
and majority of them are not in favour of the proposal keeping in view the
unique nature of functioning of Tribunals under their control. After receipt
G of the views from all the different departments, the Government of India
stated that 'they will review the matter'. In these circumstances, no particular
time could have been fixed by the High Court and the directions issued by
it in this regard are wholly unnecessary, p~icularly when this Court is seized
of the matter, it was wholly within its competence to monitor, supervise,
control and direct the Government in this regard and it is not at all necessary
H for the High Court to take upon itself to issue such directions and it should
B. RAMAN JIN! v. STATE (RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 517

have appropriately left that matter to this Court. To say the least, the High A
Court has engaged itself the role of a legislative body to rescue those who
are in distress by adopting this procedure. Further, when this Court has
explained the scheme of the enactment and expressed its views, no directions
could have been issued by the High Court. on all those aspects and the
direction, in particular, in what manner the vacancies arising thereto should B
be filled up on the retirement of Shri Kuppu Rao, Member of the Andhra
....
Pradesh A.dministrative Tribunal, was totally uncalled for. The High Court
has been carried away by some kind of adventurism and virtually tried to
overreach what this Court has stated which course should have been avoided
at all costs. These appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders of the High
Court and dismissing the writ petitions. C
CIVIL APPEAL No. 309312002 [@ SLP (C) No. 7554 of 1999]

Leave granted.

The Director of School ·Education in Andhra Pradesli issued a D
notification inviting applications for filling up about 40 thousand posts of
Secondary Grade Teachers pursuant to which the appellants and others
appeared for the said examination held on 19.4.1998 urtder the relevant rules
for holding the examination prescribing minimum qualifying marks for being
eligible for interview. Another rule provides that number of candidates to be
interviewed shall be thrice the number o~ p·osts advertised. Since the requisite E
number of candidates could not secure the prescribed minimum qualifying
marks in the written examination, the Government issued a notification G.O.
Rt. No. 618 dated 18.5.1998 providing for reduction of minimum qualifying
marks prescribed under the relevant mies by five marks with a view to ensure
filling up of all posts of teachers before the reopening of schools. Subsequently,
the appellants were interviewed in May/June, 1998 and on 13.8.1998 the
F
appellants were selected and appointment orders were issued in the proceedings
of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Khammam District.

Since mass copying and leakage of question papers were reported in
Anantapur district, the Government having conducted an enquiry ordered re- G
examination in that particular district alone. Under Rule 3 of the Recruitment
Rules each district is a unit with separate District Selection Committee and,
.. as such, the appellants, who belong to Khammam District, have nothing to
do with the irregularities reported or the consequent re-examination in the
Anantapur District. Several writ petitions had been filed questioning the
selections on the basis of aforesaid irregularities, the jurisdiction of H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A Administrative Tribunals for judicial review, etc. and some of the petitioners
questioned the constitutional validity of the notification which provides for
reduction of minimum qualifying marks in the written examination.

The High Court by an order made on 16. l 0.1998 held the said
notification G.O. Rt. No. 618 dated 18.5.1998 to be illegal as the same was
B not issued in exercise of rule making power under Sections 78 and 79 of the
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, Section 169(4), 195(4) and 268 of the
Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1994 or under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution. The High Court felt that the reduction of qualifying marks
could have been done only by modifying the relevant rule and not by exercise
C of powers other than what was contained under the Andhra Pradesh Education
Act. Apart from the selected candidates, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
has also filed appeals.

It is contended that under the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for
posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Pules, 1994, Rule 13(a), which is
D also applicable to the relevant selection, enables the Government to relax the
conditions imposed under the Recruitment Rules by reducing qualifying marks
by five and hence, the High Court could not have held the impugned action
to be illegal. However, it is not necess:;iry to examine that aspect of the matter
in the view we proposed to take in the matter.

E Selection process had commenced long back as early as in 1998 and it
had been completed. The persons selected were appointed pursuant to the
selections made and had been performing their duties. However, the selected
candidates had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in
their individual capacity or in any representative capacity. In that view of the
matter, the High Court ought not to have examined any of the questions
F raised before it in the proceedings initiated before it. The writ petitions filed
by the concerned respondents ought to have been dismissed which are more
or less in the nature of a public interest litigation. It is not a case where those
candidates who could not take part in the examination had challenged the
same nor was any public interest, as such, really involved in this matter. It
G is only in the process of selection and standardisation of pass marks some
relaxation had been given which was under attack. Therefore, the High Court
ought not to have examined the matter at the instance of the petiti<;mers,
particularly in the absence of the parties before the court whose substantial
rights to hold office came to be vitally affected.

H Now, another aspect that remains to be considered is in relation to the
B. RAMAN JIN! v. STATE [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 519

directions issued by the High Court regarding carry forward of reservation. A
Before the High Court a contention was raised that the implementation of the
reservation policy is perfunctory and there is no specification of posts for
each of the reserved categories. The classification of women, physically
handicapped candidates, Ex-serviceman had to be adjusted only within the
respective categories of OC, BC, SC and ST of 54%, 25%, l 5% and 6% and B
there was serious error in the same. After having noticed the various errors,
the High Court examined the matter with respect to Karimnagar District and
found that the reservations contained several anomalies which needed to be
rectified. The learned Government Pleader contended that as a result of carry
forward system certain excessive posts had been reserved, but the High Court
found that for the first time in G.O.Ms No. 65 carry forward system had been C
made available to the posts which are the subject matter of the writ petitions
filed before it and, therefore, the question of carry forward for this selection
does not arise at all. Having said it, the High Court found that they do not
want to disturb the present selection process which has already been completed.
In that event, there was no need for the High Court to have given any
directions for future merely on the basis of hypothetical situation as to how D
the selection had to be made and provide for the manner in which it should
• be given effect to. As and when fresh selections are made, the same could
be sorted out whether they are in conformity with the appropriate provisions
of law and the correct reservation policy has been followed or not. For future
no particular principle could be set out in a judgment of this nature where E
nothing had been decided. In the first place, the High Court held that the
question does not arise for consideration and in the second place, the selections
made are not being disturbed. Therefore, it is wholly uncalled for, for the
High Court to have given directions regarding reservations. Therefore, the
directions given by the High Court thereto shall stand set aside.
F
The appeals shall stand allowed and the order made by the High Court
shall stand set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners shall stand
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeals allowed .

..